Thursday, June 21, 2007

Financial Times: Klaus answers

The Financial Times' climate expert, Prof Václav Klaus, answers some of the questions that followed Klaus' article, "Freedom, not climate, is at risk":
Ask the Expert (Q & A)
If you don't have much time, here's my abstract of all answers where I tried to make them even more insightful and entertaining than they are:
  1. Do you think that the correct economist's approach is to follow hysterical recommendations of IPCC and others who replace cost-benefit analyses by "precautionary principle"?
  2. Imagine that AGW is real anyway, what should we do?
    A detailed analysis shows that the answer is Nothing.
  3. How can one predict climate if it's impossible to predict weather?
    That's my point. After having read hundreds of books and articles, especially the human influence seems uncalculable to me.
  4. Why do you disbelieve the science and why freedom is at risk if the consensus is supported by capitalism-loving governments of EU and U.K.?
    Science is not the same as national scientific establishments. EU and U.K. elites only support market as the #1 force at a different planet. Moreover, market doesn't belong to policymakers.
  5. What the costs of a 50% reduction will be for Czechia?
    I admit I don't know but costs will be not only financial and costs shouldn't be calculated for 2050 because we don't know prices etc.
  6. Environmentalists demand responsibility which should be a conservative value but it's not: what happened?
    They don't have any copyright on responsibility, a standard part of human behavior. They only invented a non-existing "damage" and I won't pay for it. Saying that pro-capitalists want to dump waste is like the commie propaganda.
  7. Czechia is a victim of powers' environmental decisions, what to do?
    Blaming powers is fashionable but incorrect and wrong & environmentalist tendencies exist in countries of all sizes.
  8. Do environmentalist really work on global socialism?
    My experience and oversensitivity says Yes: the arguments seem too similar.
  9. Global warming is like avian flu, driven by trillionaires who want global power, do you agree?
    I don't think environmentalism is driven by power-thirsty trillionaires but rather by incapable people, and they only want a global government, not global constructive activities.
  10. I agree with you but the left vs right flavor is confusing, what to do?
    I don't believe that the left vs right debates are over. Freedom is a right-wing value but environmentalism has unfortunately swallowed some self-described right-wingers, too.
  11. What do organizations and politicians gain if they jump on the bandwagon?
    Power to manipulate, organize, regulate.
  12. Is it still freedom when the powerful of the world impose the new climate on others?
    There's no conspiracy to change the climate and the human-climate link can't be taken for granted.
  13. How can rational libertarians save our culture from environmentalists?
    Classical liberals should stop being a silent majority.
  14. Why do so many people believe in junk science?
    Some people have the same reasons as UFO & witch believers. Others believe in their special abilities to control the rest of us. A third group has a financial interest. My opinions are normal: I don't understand why people think that I am courageous.
  15. Does wasting energy strengthen freedom?
    Be fair: attacking environmentalism is different from attacking Nature. Saving energy is rational and a decision about it is naturally made by free individuals. Your statements about the U.S. encouraging wasteful policies are ludicrous.
  16. Small temperature changes have led to huge problems: how much more do you have to see (numbers)?
    Read Singer & Avery and Michaels' books. Just one number: the very debatable IPCC predicts 14-43 cm for the 21st century sea level rise. Not scary to me.
  17. You criticize Stern for talking about future but you do it, too.
    I criticize Stern for particular errors - choosing a funnily low discount rate - not for aprioristic opinions.
  18. There's huge evidence that Man is ruining the planet. What do you have to see more to lead the counter-attack against Man?
    The problem is that I don't see convincing evidence for the damage caused e.g. by AGW. Skiing and warm evenings are still very pleasant. And environment in Czechia is much better than when collective actions were taken: because of freedom.

And that's the memo.

No comments:

Post a Comment